Undue delay in issuing a detention order vitiates its validity, necessitating a timely nexus between alleged acts and preventive detention.

JUDGMENT :

K. V. Jayakumar, J.

The petitioner is the father of Sri.Vinu @ Temper Vinu [‘detenu’ for the sake of brevity]. He challenges Ext.P1 detention order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the 2^nd respondent, District Collector, Alappuzha, under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [‘KAA(P) Act’ for the sake of brevity]. The detenu was classified as ‘Known Rowdy’ under section 2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act.

2. The records would reveal that the detenu has previously been involved in seven cases, the details of which are as follows:-

3. Apart from the above-mentioned cases, he was involved in six other cases which were not reckoned for the passing of Ext.P1 order. Ext.P1 is the detention order against the detenu. Prior to the passing of Ext.P1 order, an externment order was passed against the detenu for the period from 24.04.2022 to 23.10.2022. After the said period, the detenu was implicated in five cases. Altogether, there were seven cases considered for booking the detenu as ‘Known Rowdy’. It is averred in the petition that all the cases are under trial. The proposal was on 05.10.2024.

4. The last prejudicial activity alleged against the detenu is Crime No.945/2024 of Mannancherry Police Station, registered alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 351(3), 296(b), 115(2), 324(2)& 3(5) of BNS. The date of the alleged occurrence was 16.09.2024. The FIR was registered on 17.09.2024. The detenu surrendered before the concerned Court on 10.10.2024, and he was released on bail on the same day. The allegation is that, due to enmity towards the Jail Warden, the detenu assaulted and beat him on the cheek while in custody. The final report was filed on 30.10.2024. The detenu was implicated as accused No.2.

5. It is stated in the writ petition that the dispute is purely personal in nature and does not amount to a violation of public order. Ext.P1 order was confirmed by the 1^st respondent vide order dated 29.03.2025.

The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner:

6. Sri. M.H.Hanis, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there is a huge gap between the last prejudicial act and the passing of Ext.P1 detention order. The last prejudicial activity alleged against the detenu is Crime No.945/2024 of Mannancherry Police Station. It was registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 351(3), 296(b), 115(2), 324(2)& 3(5) of BNS. The date of the alleged occurrence was 16.09.2024. The FIR was registered on 17.09.2024. The detenu surrendered before the Court and was released on bail on 10.10.2024. The detenu is arrayed as accused No. 2 in that matter. Ext.P1 order was passed on 13.01.2025. Hence, the time gap between the last prejudicial activity and the passing of the detention order is about four months. There is a delay of three months and four days after executing the bail in the last prejudicial act. More than 50% of the period of detent